The AGM Awards committee is pleased to announce that there will be three additional awards presented at this year's AGM on the evening of Friday, April 27, 2018 during the "Opening Ceremonies".
Peer support recognition: Is there a member whom you would like to have recognized for having provided on-going peer support over the years as it relates to the work of AEBC? Perhaps this person has been a great influence in your life in general? Please write a summary explaining how this person has been instrumental in providing peer support.
All who are nominated and fit the criteria will receive recognition.
Outstanding Community Service Award: Which business (in the private or public sectors) of your community would you like to have recognized as having gone the extra mile to provide excellent service to Blind, deaf-blind and partially sighted Canadians? This business should be observed as providing its services without any, or very few barriers. While we know that some businesses are constantly reminded of their obligation to serve members of the public with the thought in mind that we should all be able to take part on an equal basis, we are aware that not all comply nor do they appear to care. Describe the attributes that make this business stand out.
From a mobility prospective, is the building accessible inside and out?
Is the lighting adequate to conduct your business in this establishment?
Have staff been trained to serve blind, deaf-blind or partially sighted persons with respect and dignity and in a timely manner?
Are you able to navigate without concerns at this place of business? Is it safe?
Can you independently complete your transaction satisfactorily?
If requested, would this business provide you with their reading materials in the alternate format of your choice?
These are a few suggestions as to what you might ask yourselves if you were to nominate a place of business which you feel is deserving of this recognition.
All who are nominated and fit the criteria will be recognized.
. Accessible Website: Is there a website that you use frequently that is accessible for blind, deaf-blind and partially sighted Canadians that you would like recognized? If so, please provide the URL and a summary about the website and explain how it is accessible and why you use this website.
Remember: We can only know your nominee through your submission, so please be specific when explaining why they should be recognized for the award.


The story is fairly simple: an oracle tells our favorite immortal that he's about to die. In the meantime, a series of strange events that may or may not be related to his past in ancient Greece happen to our protagonist, leaving him seemingly no choice but to jump back into the fray.
The ingredients from the first book all seem to be there: an immortal alcoholic? check; snarky observations about civilization? check; bizarre events that don't quite add up until the very end? check… sort of. There are far fewer flashbacks to the olden days and a lot more seemingly irrelevant (at first, at least) preludes to each chapter. They're written IN ALL CAPS, which gets very tiresome very quickly, especially as they get longer with each chapter. They make sense in the end, but it's not very reader-friendly.
I wouldn't recommend this book, unless you were a huge fan of the first book and wanted to speed-read through it on your way to book three.


text:
Alex Russell (Kells, 17 de enero de 1923 - Glengormley, 24 de febrero de 2014) fue un jugador de fútbol británico que jugaba en la demarcación de portero.

Biografía
Alex Russell debutó como futbolista en 1941 con el Cliftonville FC. Después de tres años, Russell fichó por el Linfield FC. Con el club jugó un total de 600 partidos, y ganó un total de seis NIFL Premiership, seis Copa de Irlanda del Norte y cuatro Copa Ulster. Finalmente en 1960 se retiró a los 37 años de edad. Tras su retiro siguió unido al Linfield FC formando parte del personal del club.

Falleció el 24 de febrero de 2014 en un hospital de Glengormley a los 91 años tras sufrir una corta enfermedad.

Selección nacional
Jugó un partido con la selección de fútbol de Irlanda del Norte contra Inglaterra el 28 de septiembre de 1946.

Clubes

Palmarés

Campeonatos nacionales

Referencias

Enlaces externos
 Ficha del jugador en footballdatabase

Futbolistas del Cliftonville Football & Athletic Club
Futbolistas del Linfield Football Club
Futbolistas de la selección de fútbol de Irlanda del Norte

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


A POW's memories of communist torture camp collaborators Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda.
C-SPAN's Brian Lamb recently interviewed Lee Ellis, author of Leading with Honor: Leadership Lessons from the Hanoi Hilton. The book is a valuable primer on history that many Americans have forgotten or know only in part. Leading with Honor is also an introduction to characters all Americans should get to know better, such as Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. Ellis came to know the pair under different circumstances.
After the prisoner's legs were tied together, his arms were laced tightly behind his back until the elbows touched and the shoulders were virtually pulled out of joint. Then the torturer would push the bound arms up and over the head, while applying pressure with a knee to the victim's back. During the torture, the circulation is cut off and the limbs to go sleep but the joint pain continues to increase as the ligaments and muscles tear. When the ropes are finally removed, circulation surges back into the "dead" limbs, causing excruciating pain.
POW Mike McGrath provides a sketch of the practice. The North Vietnamese also used handcuffs that could be ratcheted down tighter until they cut off circulation, even cut into the muscle and on some men, "deep enough to expose bone." But the torture wasn't all physical.
The captors piped in propaganda and, Ellis explains, "the afternoon broadcasts were especially disheartening because they featured Americans spouting words that could have been written for them in Moscow and Hanoi." American Tom Hayden "was a regular speaker," later joined by his wife "film star Jane Fonda." For this pair, the American POWs were war criminals and their reports of torture were lies.
Ellis charitably calls Fonda an "anti-war activist," but she and Hayden were not against war in general. They only opposed American participation in a war against the North Vietnamese regime they served as propagandists. Hayden was their voice in the cells of the Hanoi Hilton and Fonda partied it up with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft squad. But unlike "Axis Sally," Mildred Gillars, who served jail time for broadcasting Nazi propaganda, "Hanoi Jane" suffered not at all. Her money and prestige helped Hayden gain public office in California.
The war in Vietnam continued after the United States pulled out in 1973 and in 1975 South Vietnam fell to the Communists. Hayden and Fonda celebrated the victory and remained uncritical of a Stalinist regime more repressive than its Soviet sponsors. Fonda even sought to slam the door on the "boat people" who fled the regime. Hayden called their defenders, such as Joan Baez, tools of the CIA.
Meanwhile, one of Tom Hayden's comrades, John Froines, was recently the subject of a glowing profile in the Sacramento Bee describing him as a "social justice and civil rights advocate" but a stickler for facts and completely impartial.
Froines' panel championed a study by Hien Tran of the California Air Resources Board, who claimed to have a PhD from UC Davis. Actually, Tran bought his degree from a diploma mill in a New York UPS office. Froines also fought epidemiologist James Enstrom of the UCLA School of Public Health, who exposed Tran's fakery and pointed out problems in his study.
Even so, Froines was duly reappointed to the panel by Assembly Speaker John Perez who claimed to have earned a degree from UC Berkeley, a claim backed by state officials and federal Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. But that too was wrong. Perez, a "Chicano Studies" major, did not earn a degree at UC Berkeley. In politically correct California, a virtual one-party state, the falsehood hurt him not at all.
The California Environmental Protection Agency honored John Froines in a private ceremony and the Italian city of Capri gave him the prestigious Ramazzini Award as a "public health hero." New Left hero Tom Hayden went on to teach at UCLA and Occidental College. And Jane Fonda of course remains a Big Star.
To find out how Tom and Jane came across from the cells of the Hanoi Hilton, and to learn what kind of regime they defended, readers might consult Leading with Honor by Lee Ellis. Yes, there's a lesson or two in there somewhere.


text:
Legend One $21,500 tiny home with AI is available for pre-order
Nestron will be manufacturing the Legend One, an eco friendly $21,500 tiny home with artificial intelligence systems and a bedroom, living room, kitchen, and bathroom.
For $12,500 more, the 167.92-square foot home — which is currently available for pre-order — can come fully furnished and move-in ready.
The Legend tiny home lineup was designed to appeal to the traditional tiny home customer that's drawn to container or cabin homes.
Nestron will be manufacturing the Legend One, an eco-friendly $21,500 tiny home with artificial intelligence systems.
The company, which was founded three years ago, currently has two tiny home "series" in its product lineup: the Legend and the Cube, both with differing exterior appearances but similar interior amenities, like eco-friendly components and an artificial intelligence system.
The Cube tiny homes — which is currently the company's most popular series — were designed to appear "futuristic," according to its maker. To contrast this modern, spaceship-like look, the Legend series was created to appeal to the conventional tiny home crowd.
"The decision to design Legend series was because we want to cater to clients who are interested in traditional container or cabin-style tiny houses," Choco Toh of Nestron's marketing team told Business Insider in an email interview.
Tags: Home, Legend, preorder, tiny
Dubai's Sweetheart Kitchen plans Saudi expansion
Google Home: 5 questions you never knew you could ask

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Nikon Coolpix A100 Review
June 21, 2016 | Jack Baker | Rating star Rating star Rating star
Rating & Conclusion
Main Rivals
Review Roundup
The Nikon Coolpix A100 is a budget compact camera with a 20.1MP CCD sensor and a 5x optical zoom range equating to 26-130mm. The camera will record HD 720p video, and it packs some fun creative effects including Nikon's Smart Portrait mode that automatically enhances shots of friends and family. The Coolpix A100's svelte design can be had in five body colour options and is available exclusively at Argos in the UK for £89.99.
Firstly, let's get one thing straight: the Nikon Coolpix A100, despite its new name, is not a new camera. Apart from a couple of negligible styling tweaks, the A100 is identical to 2015's S2900, which itself was essentially the same as 2014's S2800. Renaming a camera rather that improving it is nothing new, and unfortunately it's now becoming commonplace in the budget compact sector. With the relentless drive to improve smartphone cameras, the market for the standalone point and shoot snapper is rapidly decreasing, therefore it's no surprise that camera manufacturers aren't exactly eager to invest resources into developing all-new models.
But at least the Nikon Coolpix A100's tried and tested design doesn't throw up any surprises. Its controls are exactly where you'd expect and you needn't worry about learning any new technology. The A100's rear panel is predominantly devoted to a 2.7-inch 230k-dot monitor that has acceptable horizontal viewing angles but appalling vertical visibility, which is a pain when composing high or low angle shots. You can also forget about luxuries like touch sensitivity, and the low resolution means fine image details and menu icons are pixelated. The LCD's one positive aspect is brightness, which is enough to counteract direct sunlight, but otherwise even a mediocre current smartphone will thrash the A100's screen quality.
Next to the screen is a typical array of traditional controls, with the raised video record button doubling as a small but helpful thumb rest. There's no obvious gripping point on the front of the camera for your fingers, however the Nikon logo is slightly embossed and textured, giving you just enough to grip on to. But while the Nikon Coolpix A100 doesn't feel overly secure in the hand, it's certainly a whole lot more comfortable to use than a smartphone, yet its fairly slim 19.8mm thickness and tapered corners mean it'll still slip easily into a tight pocket. The camera's 119g ready-to-shoot weight is also very light and actually undercuts most high-end smartphones.
Front of the Nikon Coolpix A100
Beneath the video record control is the playback button, which sits to the right of the mode selector button. This reveals five main shooting modes, including the default Scene Auto Selector mode that automatically detects the type of shooting scenario you're about to capture and applies the most appropriate settings. The second mode lets you manually select various scene modes, one of which is Panorama Assist. However, as its name suggests, this isn't and automatic sweep panorama feature, but rather a function that overlays a partial ghost image of the previous shot taken in a panorama sequence to help you line up the next overlapping photo. Next up in the main mode menu are the eight creative effects modes, each of which is previewed in real time. Check out the image quality section of the review for examples.
Nikon's Smart Portrait system is given its own dedicated mode setting, which makes sense as this is a fairly comprehensive feature that can transform an otherwise unflattering portrait. The system works by automatically smoothing skin and applying virtual foundation make-up, plus it'll soften an entire image and adjust colour saturation and brightness. It all works surprisingly well, but if you forget to activate it, you can always enhance a portrait shot in playback mode using the Glamour Retouch feature. Here even more touch-up options are available, including chin size manipulation and skin glare reduction, along with scope to adjust eye size, colour and whiteness, and even reduce under-eye bags. You can finish things off by reddening cheeks, adding some virtual mascara and applying lipstick. Providing your subject is directly facing the camera and fills most of the frame, these effects are targeted accurately at their relevant facial features.
Rear of the Nikon Coolpix A100
The fifth and final shooting mode is Auto mode, which functions like a programmable auto mode. Here the camera retains control of shutter speed and aperture, but you get to choose white balance and ISO sensitivity settings. In Auto mode, the A100 also has options for changing the focus point between face priority, subject tracking, target finding, centre and manual point selection, plus there's the ability to switch between single and full-time autofocus. Auto mode also reveals the continuous shooting option. To adjust any of these settings, you simply press the Menu button located at the bottom of the rear panel.
The remaining controls on the back of the Nikon Coolpix A100 include a directional control pad that doubles as controls for the flash (chose between Auto and Off when in Scene Auto Selector mode, while Auto mode adds Auto with red-eye reduction, Fill flash, and Slow sync options), self-timer (2 and 10 second delay options are available), macro mode, and exposure compensation (+/-2EV).
The Nikon Coolpix A100 In-hand
On the top of the A100 you'll find the power button and shutter release button that's surrounded by a conventional zoom rocker ring. This only has one speed, so making very fine focal length adjustments can be slightly hit or miss. Flip the camera over and there's a tripod mount, as well as a single socket that takes care of charging and AV output duties. Alongside this is a small door covering the battery and SD card compartment.
When it comes to shooting with the Nikon Coolpix A100, it'll power on in a fairly spritely 2 seconds, but from then on Nikon's lack of technical development starts to show. You'll have to wait up to three frustrating seconds between snapping a shot and being able to view it, thanks to the camera's outdated and underpowered image processer. At least the autofocussing system is pretty nippy and doesn't slow too much in low light, although in these conditions the A100's autofocussing isn't entirely reliable. Macro focussing is much more hit or miss, however. In the default Scene Auto Selector mode the camera struggles to detect close subjects and often requires you to leave more than the quoted 10cm minimum distance in order to focus. To get more consistent macro focussing, you'll need to switch to Auto mode and manually activate macro focussing using the rear panel Macro button. It's a tedious workaround to an issue that should have been properly addressed years ago.
Finally, unlike the cheaper Coolpix A10 that's powered by two AA batteries, the A100 uses Nikon's EN-EL19 rechargeable Li-ion battery that's rated for a reasonable 250 shots per charge.
In good light, the Coolpix A100's 20.1MP 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor produces acceptable image quality. Fine detail is fairly well resolved, especially in landscape shots, where distant foliage isn't smeared by noise reduction and image smoothing. Colour vibrancy may be slightly underwhelming for some tastes, as it tends to be more natural than eye-catching. Dynamic range is similarly average and the camera struggles to preserve strong highlights at the same time as keeping shadow areas clearly visible.
The A100's 5x, 26-130mm lens manages to keep corner sharpness almost on a par with detail in the centre of frame, and you won't see any distortion in real world images. However, chromatic aberration is easily visible on high contrast boundaries, even when viewing shots at half size.
But it's the lens' lack of image stabilisation that's most problematic. Shoot in moderate to low light and camera shake is hard to avoid, especially at longer focal lengths. Assuming you can hold the A100 very steady, low light image quality is acceptable up to ISO 800 with minimal noise and only slight detail loss. However, at ISO 1600 images look noticeably softer, and the maximum ISO 3200 sensitivity is best avoided due to the significant grain, obvious image processing, and reduced image size of just 3.87 megapixels.
The Nikon Coolpix A100 has six sensitivity settings ranging from ISO 80 to ISO 1600 at full resolution. Switch from the default Scene Auto Selector mode to regular Auto mode and you can manually select ISO 3200, however images at this sensitivity are recorded at a small 2272x1704 resolution.
ISO 80 (100% Crop)
ISO 100 (100% Crop)
ISO 1600 (100% Crop)
Focal Range
The A100's 5x zoom lens achieves a maximum wide-angle focal length equivalent to 26mm, and can zoom in to 130mm (in 35mm-camera terms). As you can see, with no image stabilisation and the default Scene auto selector mode's reluctance to engage high ISO sensitivities, blur from camera shake is a problem when using full zoom.
File Quality
Shooting the Coolpix A100 at its maximum 20MP resolution with fine jpeg quality produces images around 8MB in size. Switching to normal quality at the same resolution brings that down to roughly 4-4.5MB. Other resolution options are also available: 10MP (approx. 2.2MB), 4MP (approx. 1MB), 2MP (approx. 0.5MB), and VGA 640x480 (approx. 100-150KB).
The A100's lens will focus as close as 10cm from your subject when the lens is at maximum wide-angle. However, the camera will only consistently focus at this distance when you switch to Auto mode and manually activate macro focussing.
The A100's flash has four settings when shooting in standard Auto mode: Auto, Auto with red-eye reduction, Fill flash & Slow sync. Shooting a white surface from a distance of 1.5m shows the flash provides even illumination with the lens zoomed in, though some minor vignetting is visible in the wide-angle shot.
Flash Off - Wide Angle (26mm)
Flash On - Wide Angle (26mm)
Flash Off - Telephoto (130mm)
Flash On - Telephoto (130mm)
With the flash is set to Fill Flash, red-eye is fairly obvious, but it's just about eliminated by switching to Auto with red-eye reduction mode.
Fill Flash On
Fill Flash On (100% Crop)
Flash Auto with red-eye reduction
Flash Auto with red-eye reduction (100% Crop)
Night Landscape Mode
This mode includes two sub-settings: Tripod, and Handheld. In Tripod mode the A100 captured this scene at the base ISO 80 sensitivity with a 2-second exposure. However there's still noticeable image noise and the overall exposure is about a stop darker than it should be. Switching to the Handheld sub-setting produces images identical to simply shooting in regular Auto mode. The result is an ISO 800 shot recorded at ¼-second. It's still too dark, and despite making several attempts at this shot, the A100 wouldn't focus correctly (although the camera claimed otherwise). All in all, a very poor performance.
Digital Filters
The A100 offers eight filter effects, all of which are previewed live and recorded at full resolution. Your options are: Soft, Nostalgic sepia, High-contrast mono, Selective colour, Pop, Toy camera effect 1, Toy camera effect 2, and Cross process.
Nostalgic Sepia
High-contrast Monochrome
Selective Colour
Toy camera Effect 1
Cross Process
This is a selection of sample images from the Nikon Coolpix A100 camera, which were all taken using the 20 megapixel High JPEG setting. The thumbnails below link to the full-sized versions, which have not been altered in any way.
1/3s · f/5.3 · ISO 80
66mm (35mm)
1/4s · f/5.3 · ISO 100
1/15s · f/5.3 · ISO 400
1/60s · f/5.3 · ISO 1600
1/100s · f/5.3 · ISO 3200
1/40s · f/3.2 · ISO 80
130mm (35mm)
1/100s · f/3.2 · ISO 80
200/100s · f/3.2 · ISO 80
1/1000s · f/3.2 · ISO 80
Sample Movie & Video
This is a sample movie at the highest quality setting of 1280x720 pixels at 30 frames per second. Please note that this 20 second movie is 64.7Mb in size.
Download the sample movie
Front of the Nikon Coolpix A100 / Lens Extended
Side of the Nikon Coolpix A100
Rear of the Nikon Coolpix A100 / Image Displayed
Rear of the Nikon Coolpix A100 / Main Menu
Top of the Nikon Coolpix A100
Bottom of the Nikon Coolpix A100
Battery Compartment / Memory Card Slot
The Nikon Coolpix A100 isn't a particularly bad camera, but it is a thoroughly average and outdated token effort that exists purely to give Nikon a presence in a dying segment of the camera market. It is largely unchanged from the Coolpix S2900 and even the S2800 before that, evidenced by the lack of reactively modern features like Wi-Fi or a touch screen.
Even disregarding the no-frills specs, the Coolpix A100 hardly excels at the basics. Image processing speed is leisurely at best, while the 2.7-inch screen's low resolution and restrictive viewing angles make it one of the most disappointing camera monitors on the market today. At least image quality is acceptable in good light, and this is one of the few areas where the A100 can actually match a half-decent smartphone camera. However, low light shooting is much less accomplished due to the lens' lack of image stabilisation and unreliable autofocussing, along with the poor high ISO image quality.
While the Nikon Coolpix A100 will never impress a keen photographer, its low price and svelte size are likely to attract casual shooters on a tight budget. Trouble is, even at this price, the Coolpix A100 faces stiff competition from cameras like the Canon PowerShot SX610 HS. This is in a different performance league to the Nikon, yet shop around and it'll only cost you £10 more than the A100's £89.99 RRP. Even so, if you can find the Nikon Coolpix A100 generously discounted, it just about makes sense as a cheap occasional camera to replace a much older model.
Ratings (out of 5)
Features 2.5
Ease-of-use 3.5
Image quality 3
Value for money 3
Listed below are some of the rivals of the Nikon Coolpix A100.
The Canon PowerShot SX170 IS is an affordable travel-zoom compact camera. For less than £150 / $200, the Canon SX170 offers a 16x optical zoom lens, 16 megapixel sensor, 3 inch LCD screen and 720p movies. Read our in-depth Canon PowerShot SX170 IS review now...
The Nikon Coolpix S2900 is an entry-level, slim and stylish compact camera featuring a 5x zoom lens, 20 megapixels, 720p HD movies, 2.7 inch screen and a range of special effects. Read our in-depth Nikon Coolpix S2900 review now...
Panasonic Lumix DMC-SZ10
The Panasonic Lumix DMC-SZ10 is a brand new travel-zoom compact camera for 2015. The stylish Panasonic SZ10 offers 16 megapixels, a 12x zoom lens (24-288mm), a 3 inch LCD tilting screen for easier selfies, built-in wi-fi connectivity, and 720p HD movies. Read our expert Panasonic DMC-SZ10 review now...
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W570
The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W570 is a new 16.1 megapixel compact camera with an ultra-wide angle 25-125mm 5x zoom lens. The W570 has a raft of auto features aimed at improving your pictures, from the Easy shooting mode for complete beginners, smile shutter for easier portraits, dynamic range optimiser for more detail, to the Sweep Panorama mode that never fails to impress. Read our Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W570 review to find out if this is the right point-and-shoot camera for you.
The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX220 is a slim and stylish compact camera with wi-fi and NFC connectivity. The WX220 also features a 10x zoom lens, 18 megapixel Exmor R CMOS sensor, 10fps continuous shooting and Full 1080p HD movie recording. Priced at around £179, read our Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX220 review to find out if it's worth considering...
Reviews of the Nikon Coolpix A100 from around the web.
ephotozine.com »
The Nikon Coolpix A100 is one of Nikon's cheapest compact cameras with a rechargeable lithium-ion battery, it's priced at a low price of £69.99, and is available in a number of colours. The A100 features a 20.1-megapixel sensor and a wide-angle 5x optical zoom lens.
Read the full review »
20.1 million (Image processing may reduce the number of effective pixels.)
1/2.3-in. type CCD, Total pixels: approx. 20.48 million
NIKKOR lens with 5x optical zoom
4.6 to 23.0 mm (angle of view equivalent to that of 26 to 130 mm lens in 35 mm [135] format)
f/3.2 to 6.5
Up to 4x (angle of view equivalent to that of approx. 520 mm lens in 35 mm [135] format)
Vibration reduction
Electronic VR (movies)
Motion blur reduction
Electronic VR (still images)
Contrast-detect AF
[W]: Approx. 50 cm (1 ft 8 in.) to infinity, [T]: Approx. 80 cm (2 ft 8 in.) to infinity, Macro mode: Approx. 10 cm (4 in.) to infinity (wide-angle position) (All distances measured from center of front surface of lens)
AF-area mode
Face priority, center, manual with 99 focus areas, subject tracking, target finding AF
6.7 cm (2.7-in.) diagonal; Approx. 230k-dot, TFT LCD, and 5-level brightness adjustment
Frame coverage
Approx. 98% horizontal and vertical (compared to actual picture)
Frame coverage (playback mode)
SD, SDHC, SDXC, Internal memory (approx. 25 MB)
DCF and Exif 2.3 compliant
Storage file formats
Still images: JPEG, Movies: AVI (Motion-JPEG compliant)
20M (High) [5152 x 3864 (Fine)], 20M [5152 x 3864], 10M [3648 x 2736], 4M [2272 x 1704], 2M [1600 x 1200], VGA [640 x 480], 16:9 (14M) [5120 x 2880], 1:1 [3864 x 3864]
ISO sensitivity
ISO 80 to 1600, ISO 3200 (available when using Auto mode)
Exposure metering
Matrix, center-weighted (digital zoom less than 2x), spot (digital zoom 2x or more)
Exposure control
Programmed auto exposure and exposure compensation (–2.0 to +2.0 EV in steps of 1/3 EV)
Mechanical and CCD electronic shutter
1/2000 to 1 s, 4 s (Fireworks show scene mode)
Can be selected from 10 s and 2 s
Electromagnetic ND filter (–2.6 AV) selection
Aperture range
2 steps (f/3.2 and f/8 [W])
Built-in flash
Flash range (approx.)
[W]: 0.5 to 4.0 m (1 ft 8 in. to 13 ft) [T]: 0.8 to 2.0 m (2 ft 8 in. to 6 ft 6 in.)
Flash control
TTL auto flash with monitor preflashes
Hi-Speed USB, supports Direct Print (PictBridge), also used as audio/video output connector (NTSC or PAL can be selected for video output.)
Stereo mini-pin jack (3.5-mm diameter; plug-in power supported)
Stereo mini-pin jack (3.5-mm diameter)
Arabic, Bengali, Bulgarian, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Marathi, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese (European and Brazilian), Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese
One Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL19 (included), AC Adapter EH-62G (available separately)
Approx. 3 h (when using Charging AC Adapter EH-72P/EH-72PCH and when no charge remains)
Battery life1
Approx. 250 shots when using EN-EL19
Actual battery life for movie recording
Approx. 1 h 5 min when using EN-EL19
Tripod socket
1/4 (ISO 1222)
Approx. 94.5 x 58.6 x 19.8 mm (3.8 x 2.4 x 0.8 in.) (excluding projections)
Approx. 119 g (4.2 oz) (including battery and memory card)
Operating environment - temperature
0°C to 40°C (32°F to 104°F)
Operating environment - humidity
85% or less (no condensation)
Camera Strap, Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL19, USB Cable UC-E16, Charging AC Adapter EH-72P (A plug adapter is included if the camera was purchased in a country or region that requires a plug adapter. The shape of the plug adapter varies with the country or region of purchase.)
Share Tweet Comment


How do you write a polynomial in standard form given the zeros x=-1/2,0,4?
You multiply #x# minus the solution and you obtain #x^3-7/2x^2-2x=0#.
The solutions of a polynomial are those numbers that assigned to the #x# gives zero. So the easiest way to construct the polynomial from the solutions is to multiply together #x# minus the solution because you are sure that it becomes zero.
we have a polynomial that will become zero for #-1/2#, #0# and #4# because these three numbers set as zero one of the three factors and the product for zero is zero, no matter what are the other factors.


That blonde hair cascading down either side of her innocently sultry face, like falling locks of entwined sunshine. That smile, shy only to the point of inviting the first move. Those eyes that don't look away or blink but simply draw you inward and deeper with a steady, beckoning regard. Break the gaze and scan her body. Christ, she's let her blouse fall open.


text:
elisa_rolle —
elisa_rolle
elisa_rolle ( elisa_rolle) wrote,
Graeme Aitken (born September 23)
Graeme Aitken is best known for his two popular bestselling novels '50 Ways of Saying Fabulous' and 'Vanity Fierce', published by Random House Australia and by Hodder Headline in the UK. '50 Ways of Saying Fabulous' was adapted into a feature film in New Zealand and was an official selection for the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. It also became a popular hit on the queer film festival circuit. Most recently, Graeme has been working as an indie author, writing and self-publishing his own e-books, most notably 'The Indignities' series, a sequel to 'Vanity Fierce'.
In addition to his work as an author, Graeme has also worked as the manager of Sydney's specialist LGBT bookshop for the past 23 years. There are now only a handful of these shops left in the world. With all this experience he is an Australian authority on LGBT books/writing and he edited 'The Penguin Book of Gay Australian Writing' back in 2002. Graeme is also extremely knowledgeable about publishing (he has experience with all facets - mainstream, small press, and indie self-publishing) and the current state of the publishing/bookselling industry.
Graeme was born and raised on a remote farm in Central Otago, New Zealand, but has made his home in Sydney, Australia. He has lived and worked there for the past 25 years.
Further Readings:
50 Ways of Saying Fabulous by Graeme Aitken
Publisher: Green Candy Press; 1 edition (July 25, 2006)
Amazon: 50 Ways of Saying Fabulous
Amazon Kindle: 50 Ways of Saying Fabulous
12-year-old Billy loves food and Lost in Space. As the only son on a remote farm in New Zealand, he's forced into farm chores that aren't just abhorrent, but that leave him little time to indulge his theatrical bent. He gets by with the help of his tomboy cousin Lou and a rich fantasy life. The arrival of two outsiders — the freaky, pimply Roy and the sexy David Cassidy look-alike Jamie — changes everything. Billy is drawn to both Roy and Jamie, testing his friendships and loyalties in the process. Funny and engaging, this tale of a gay awakening resonates with anyone who endured an awkward adolescence. Billy struggles with his sexual identity, but also with his weight, in achingly familiar attempts to diet and camouflage his girth. Capturing the period when the adult world begins to impinge on the child's, the book narrates the agonies of early adolescence with wit and tenderness.
More Spotlights at my website: http://www.elisarolle.com/, My Lists/Gay Novels
This journal is friends only. This entry was originally posted at http://reviews-and-ramblings.dreamwidth.org/3876797.html. If you are not friends on this journal, Please comment there using OpenID.
Tags: author: graeme aitken, in the spotlight
2020-2021 Rainbow Awards
This cycle of the Rainbow Awards saw 348 submissions, almost 10.000$ donated to various charities and the volunteering of almost 100 readers in 3…
2020-2021 Rainbow Awards: Best Gay Book
And the Rainbow Award goes to: The Man from Milwaukee by Rick R. Reed: - This enthralling book exemplifies the best of fiction, combining…
2020-2021 Rainbow Awards: Best Lesbian Book
And the Rainbow Award goes to: Wrong Number, Right Woman by Jae: - Nice slow burn romance with " real characters. Totally relatable. Easy…
Comments allowed for friends only


text:
Q: Query: Select distinct row in laravel It's me again...
I have a table agendas and in this table I have columns employe, hrbp and direction.
How can I get the list of direction where hrbp is HRBP1
 $ListDirectionHRBP1 = DB::table('agendas')->select('direction')->where('hrbp','=','HRBP1')->distinct()->get();

Thanks

A: $ListDirectionHRBP1 = DB::table('agendas')->where('hrbp','=','HRBP1')->select('direction')->get();

A: You can also try this :-
$ListDirectionHRBP1 = DB::table('agendas')->where('hrbp','=','HRBP1')->select('direction')->get()->toArray();

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


We're in Cocoa Beach, Florida this weekend taking a break from watching our granddaughter in Miami. Cocoa Beach is an interesting town, kind of classic and dumpy in a nice way. My only past knowledge of it was where the astronauts lived in the 1960's "I Dream of Genie" series. It's home to the original Ron Jon Surf Shop, which these days is the Taj Mahal of surf shops, and open 24 hours (really). If passing through I'd gladly recommend Sandbar Sports Grill for reasonably priced drinks with generous pours, great bar food, and live music. Mangia & Bevi Pizzeria Napoletana is amazing, authentic, a solid 5 star gem hiding in plain sight in a strip mall.
We hiked today at Ulumay Wildlife Sanctuary, one of many good birding locations in the area. Betsy and I are nicely compatible hiking buddies, she looking in the trees and skies for birds, me at eye level and below for interesting 3-D subjects, both of us spotting for each other.
I'd only just started to tell Betsy to keep an eye out for interesting ant hills when I looked down and spotted this one, a triumph in structure and symmetry. In the time I sat to photograph it it was never exactly swarming with ants, but as you can imagine, my attentions made them pretty scarce. Out of all the shots I took the most ants in any shot was two or three. The diameter at the top of this hill was approximately two inches.


text:
Carnegie Foundation honors UMSL with community engagement recognition
Jan/5/2011 | POSTED BY Maureen Zegel
UMSL Provost Glen Cope called the Carnegie Foundation's recognition for the university's community engagement "a validation of UMSL's rich learning experiences."
The University of Missouri–St. Louis has earned a 2010 Community Engagement Classification from the prestigious Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. UMSL was recognized for the depth and breadth of its institutional commitment to and engagement with the greater community.
UMSL is one of 115 U.S. colleges and universities to receive the designation – and one of four in Missouri – which encourages colleges and universities to "generate socially responsive knowledge to benefit communities," according to Carnegie President Anthony Bryk.
"Community engagement has been a central focus of UMSL since the university was established in 1963," UMSL Provost Glen Cope said. "It's who we are. It's what we do. Civic engagement is woven into our mission, our research, our curriculum. Our ongoing commitment to society is the reason many of our students and faculty choose this university."
Cope called the Carnegie Foundation's recognition "a validation of UMSL's rich learning experiences not only in the classroom but in the community."
UMSL's alumni number nearly 78,000 with more than 60,000 living in the St. Louis region, more than any other university alumni group. Their impact as business, civic and political leaders and in their roles as teachers, accountants, nurses, scientists, artists, counselors, and optometrists greatly enhances the region's quality of life.
UMSL's faculty and students can be found in hundreds of locations teaching, learning and providing service to the community. Some of those experiences include:
· The Des Lee Collaborative Vision – gifts from philanthropist E. Desmond Lee and other donors have endowed 37 professors working with more than 100 community organizations. It serves more than 500,000 individuals, most of them children in urban K-12 classroom settings in underserved communities.
· The university partners with Washington University, the Missouri Botanical Garden, Barnes-Jewish Hospital and St. Louis University to support CORTEX, which supplies academic research facilities and life science incubators.
· UMSL's Students of Service program involves 1,400 UMSL students logging more than 23,000 hours of service working side by side with community leaders, teachers and residents. UMSL's College of Education and Community Partnership Project administer the three-year grant that supports some of these activities.
· The Whitney R. Harris World Ecology Center in collaboration with the Missouri Botanical Garden has formal partnerships with the Saint Louis Zoo, a university in Madagascar, three laboratories or universities in Argentina, a university in Brazil and a biological center in Guyana.
· Todd Swanstrom, the E. Desmond Lee Endowed Professor in Community Collaboration and Public Policy is working closely with Beyond Housing, an organization that provides affordable housing and homeownership services, studying the responses to foreclosures in six metropolitan areas.
· UMSL, along with its partners, has been chosen to participate in the Great Streets Initiative for Natural Bridge Road, the main east-west artery traveling through campus and five surrounding communities. The vision is to create a plan for mixed-use and transit-oriented improvements that aim to revitalize this once-thriving portion of North St. Louis County.
· The College of Optometry's Mobile Eye Center travels around the community, serving children with vision problems who otherwise wouldn't receive eye care. The service is part of the rotation for third and fourth year students in the pediatric specialty clinic and pediatric externship.
· Since 1973, students from the College of Business Administration prepare tax returns for low-income residents free of charge. The program received the IRS's National Partnership Award for Outstanding Community Service this year.
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org <http://www.carnegiefoundation.org>
More in Alumni, Arts & Sciences, Business Administration, Campus, Centers, Education, faculty, Optometry, students


text:
Are boys really turning into girls?
According to Geoffrey Lean in the Telegraph they are, and here's why:
Why boys are turning into girls
Here's something rather rotten from the State of Denmark. Its government yesterday unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes, rubber boots, bed linen, food, nappies, sunscreen lotion and moisturising cream.
The 326-page report, published by the environment protection agency, is the latest piece in an increasingly alarming jigsaw. A picture is emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminising male children all over the developed world. And anti-pollution measures and regulations are falling far short of getting to grips with it.
Sperm counts are falling so fast that young men are less fertile than their fathers and produce only a third as much, proportionately, as hamsters. And gender-bending chemicals are increasingly being blamed for the mystery of the "lost boys": babies who should normally be male who have been born as girls instead.
The Danish government set out to find out how much contamination from gender-bending chemicals a two-year-old child was exposed to every day. It concluded that a child could be "at critical risk" from just a few exposures to high levels of the substances, such as from rubber clogs, and imperilled by the amount it absorbed from sources ranging from food to sunscreens.
The results build on earlier studies showing that British children have higher levels of gender-bending chemicals in their blood than their parents or grandparents. Indeed WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund), which commissioned the older research, warned that the chemicals were so widespread that "there is very little, if anything, individuals can do to prevent contamination of themselves and their families." Prominent among them are dioxins, PVC, flame retardants, phthalates (extensively used to soften plastics) and the now largely banned PCBs, one and a half million tons of which were used in countless products from paints to electrical equipment.
Young boys, like those in the Danish study, could end up producing less sperm and developing feminised behaviour. Research at Rotterdam's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes.
And it is in the womb that babies are most vulnerable; a study of umbilical cords from British mothers found that every one contained hazardous chemicals. Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals…….(click here for the rest of the article)
Disturbing stuff isn't it? But I bet you can guess which bit of this article disturbed me the most….
Just in case you missed it, here it is again:
"Research at Rotterdam's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes."
Now I'm prepared to accept that chemical contamination may well be effecting some physical/biological changes in both animals and humans, including the reduction in men's sperm count that Lean cites here, but hello, massive and ridiculous gender stereotype alert anyone?
Even if the contamination Lean talks about is having an adverse impact on the size of men's genitals and their levels of fertility, what the fucking fuckety fuck has any of that got to do with influencing the toys they play with or the clothes they wear? Wtf has biology got to do with socially constructed gender roles?
Well, I've had a couple of days now to try and absorb the implications of Lean's assertion that boys playing with tea sets and dolls amounts to some kind of proof positive that "gender-bending" chemicals (by which he means endocrine disruptors) are actually turning boys into girls. I've also had a couple of days to do some research into it: and here's what I've found.
One of the first mentions of the Erasmus University study linking exposure to PCBs with children's play was in an article in the Independent on Sunday published on October 20th 2002 (no link I'm afraid as it doesn't appear to be available online). Entitled Gender-bending risk to children, the article states:
Minute amounts of "gender bender" chemicals found in food and the environment are affecting the behaviour of pre-school children, new research shows.
The Environment minister Michael Meacher said yesterday the research was very disturbing and he would ask his officials to "urgently" examine its implications tomorrow morning.
The study – carried out by doctors and scientists at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam – is the first in the world to show that normal levels of the chemicals affect humans. It follows a host of studies showing that gender-benders can turn wildlife species, from gulls and alligators to fish and turtles, into hermaphrodites. In the case of the children in the study, the chemicals caused girls to play with guns and pretend to be soldiers, and boys to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes.
The research, published in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives, is part of a long-term study into the effects of PCBs and dioxins on children. The researchers measured levels of the chemicals in the blood of 207 mothers in their final month of pregnancy, in umbilical blood at birth, and in breast milk two weeks after birth, to determine exposure in the womb.
They later asked the parents of the children, now aged seven, to record their patterns of play.
The girls exposed to higher levels of PCBs were more likely to engage in masculine play, while similarly exposed boys were more likely to enjoy feminine play. Dioxins produced more feminine play in boys and girls.
And the author of the piece?
Geoffrey Lean.
A few days later the story was picked up by the U.N. Wire:
"Gender-Benders" In Small Amounts Said To Alter Child Behavior
New research indicates even small amounts of so-called "gender bender" chemicals can cause preschool children to switch their traditional gender roles.
In a long-term study, Erasmus University Rotterdam researchers measured the levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the blood and breast milk of 207 mothers during various phases of maternity, then asked the parents involved to report on their children's behavior seven years later. The findings indicate that girls whose mothers had higher PCB levels were more likely to play with guns and pretend to be soldiers, while boys were more likely to play with dolls and wear female clothing (Geoffrey Lean, London Independent, Oct. 20).
And once more Lean's name crops up.
Now fast forward a couple of years. Here's a piece that appeared in the New Zealand Herald in August 2005:
Gender-bending toxins exempt from tough new laws
Gender-bending chemicals are to be exempted from tough new Europe-wide safety controls despite increasing concern that they are causing bizarre sex changes in children and wildlife, leaked documents reveal.
Confidential proposals show that the chemicals will be treated much less strictly than other dangerous substances in a European Commission directive to be finalised in coming months. Many are likely to escape control altogether.
The proposals – drawn up by the British Government as part of its EC presidency – will create a storm of protest, not least because they fly in the face of a formal warning given by more than 125 of the leading scientists in the field three months ago.
The scientists, who had carried out research on the chemicals for the EU, said they were "concerned about the high level of male reproductive disorders" in European countries and called for urgent action.
Sperm levels have been dropping across the industrialised world, and the chemicals – found in toys, plastics, cosmetics, pesticides, flame retardants and many other common products – are thought to be responsible.
Research published in May showed that boys born to mothers exposed to phthalates, used to make plastics more pliable, had smaller penises and other signs of genital feminisation.
Three years ago, a Dutch study showed that boys exposed to other gender-bending chemicals in the womb grew up preferring to play with dolls and tea sets.
The author this time?
Why look, it's none other than Geoffrey Lean!
Are you starting to see a pattern emerging?
Here's an extract from an article in the Daily Mail from February 27th 2008 entitled (rather long-windedly) Singing starlings and why thousands of babies who should have been boys are being born as girls:
…..Increasingly the sperm crisis is being blamed on a whole host of chemicals, not just synthetic oestrogen, but a wide variety of substances that have become ubiquitous in daily life.
They include the common plastic PVC; dioxins, the notorious pollutants found almost everywhere; PCBs, one-and-a-half million tons of which have been used in countless products from paints to plastics; and phthalates, universally used to make plastics more flexible.
Recent tests by WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) on 14 basic foodstuffs taken from supermarket shelves found that every single one contained PCBs, and most were contaminated by phthalates.
Both substances have been shown to have deeply worrying effects on babies and children.
Scientists at Rotterdam's Erasmus University have found that boys born to mothers exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea-sets.
Author?
Seriously, do I even need to bother answering that?
And from the Independent, December 7th 2008:
It's official: men really are the weaker sex
Professor Lou Gillette of Florida University, one of the most respected academics in the field, warned that the report waved "a large red flag" at humanity. He said: "If we are seeing problems in wildlife, we can be concerned that something similar is happening to a proportion of human males"
Indeed, new research at the University of Rochester in New York state shows that boys born to mothers with raised levels of phthalates were more likely to have smaller penises and undescended testicles. They also had a shorter distance between their anus and genitalia, a classic sign of feminisation. And a study at Rotterdam's Erasmus University showed that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys.
Written by? Well who do you think?
To cut a long story short, what my extensive research has revealed is that virtually any mention online or in the mainstream media of the Erasmus University study, or to be more specific, virtually any mention anywhere of a link between a mother being exposed to PCBs and her son's subsequent desire to don a frock and play at being the hostess with the mostest, is either written by, or makes a reference back to, Geoffrey Lean.
But what about the original research study, surely that backs up his almost obsessive repetition of the fact that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys?
Well no, not really.
In fact, here, here's the study itself: Effects of Perinatal Exposure to PCBs and Dioxins on Play Behavior in Dutch Children at School Age, in which the authors conclude that "higher prenatal exposure to PCBs was associated with less masculinized play behavior in boys and with more masculinized play behavior in girls" and where they "suggest that these results may indicate behavioral effects of steroid hormone imbalances early in development related to prenatal exposure to PCBs and dioxins, their metabolites, and/or related compounds."
And more importantly, here's an extract from the text an interview with Dr. Nynke Weisglas-Kuperus, a developmental pediatrician at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, and one of the authors of the study:
Interviewer: What do levels of exposure mean here? In typical toxicology, you figure the more that somebody's exposed to a particular chemical, the bigger the impact. What happened in this case?
WEISGLAS-KUPERUS: I think that is very difficult to say because these are very subtle findings and very low levels. But, of course, what I think is important to mention and to realize that it's not–we cannot establish a causality with the kind of studies we do. You work with a population in a certain country with an environmental mixtures of PCBs and dioxins. And yeah, you find what you find.
Interviewer: Parents listening to us right now might be–well, they might become quite concerned about what their children are being exposed to. What's the message you want to convey here?
WEISGLAS-KUPERUS: Well, I think, the first message is that what we did is an exploratory study. And we found subtle differences in play behavior. So, it's subtle differences in the normal range of play behavior. I think that's very important to realize for parents. And you should realize that we measured play behavior at a certain age. And that, in my opinion, we don't suggest that it should have something to do with childhood gender non-conformity later on. I mean, it's very subtle, we found.
In other words, the study did not find that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with tea sets and dolls or to dress in women's clothes: it found that at the age of 7 there were very subtle differences in the normal range of play behaviour which might suggest a link between higher pre-natal exposure to PCBs and less masculinised behaviour. But there was nothing to prove that link definitively, and absolutely no indication or evidence to suggest that this very subtle change in behaviour would have any impact on, or continue into, the boys' later years.
And what about the Danish study that Lean refers to in his most recent article. Does that one back up his mantra that so-called gender-bending pollutants are turning boys into cross-dressers?
Again, it's a no.
Here's the study: Survey and Health Assessment of the exposure of 2 year-olds to chemical substances in Consumer Products, in which the authors very helpfully list the potential risks associated with endocrine disruptors:
Endocrine disruptors are thought to be the reason for a:
Sperm quality below the level set as normal by WHO in one in five Danish men between the ages of 18 and 20.
Large increase in testicular cancer over the last 60 years in Denmark, and a higher incidence than any other country in Europe. Almost 1% of Danish men are at risk of developing testicular cancer.
9% incidence of cryptorchidism (testicles not fully descended into the scrotum) in Danish boys. This is significantly higher than in the 1960s. Cryptorchidism is associated with an increased risk of low sperm quality and testicular cancer.
Decrease in the testosterone levels in the blood of Danish men. Men born after the 1930s-1940s have lower testosterone levels than their fathers and grandfathers had at the same age. A 30-40 year-old man today has the same level as a 70 year-old did at that time.
There is, however, no conclusive proof that the above symptoms can be attributed to endocrine disruptors in our environment. There may be many other causes, such as lifestyle, including changes in diet, smoking habits and alcohol intake.
326 pages, and not a single mention of a tea set to be found!
The numerous studies that have been done into endocrine disruptors and the chemicals and pollutants we're constantly exposed to provide us with significant cause for concern. But the feminisation of boys, in the context of chemicals causing boys to adopt more girlified behaviour like playing with dolls and monopolising the home corner in the nursery quite clearly isn't one of them.
Maybe that's because the toys children play with and the clothes children wear have absolutely nothing to do with biological sex, and everything to do with socially constructed gender roles. But hey, that's just a theory mind; I could be wrong. After all, what would I know: I'm just a girl right, and girls don't do science do they Geoffrey Lean?
earwicga says:
Just asked my seven year old boys your title question – their answer was no. When they found out it was a newspaper said it I was told that newspapers lie!
I'd like Geoffrey Lean to explain the differences in play behaviour between my identical sons. One placenta but two umbilical cords – perhaps each cord attracted different chemicals? What a load of crap.
Thanks for doing the research Cath.
Jennifer Drew says:
Thanks Cath for undertaking research on this very biaised non-research. As always spurious claims concerning yet another panic about numbers of males supposedly declining, always receives widespread media attention.
Moral of the story is never, ever believe newspaper reports or for that matter spurious scientific research because despite claims to the contrary no scientist is 100% objective and science can never be separated out from social, cultural and political contexts. This is why Lean was able to make his unfounded claims because he was promoting a patriarchal agenda.
Missing from Lean's research is the fact male reproductive systems are still not studied to the same extent compared to female reproductive systems, because the presumption continues to be held that male reproductive bodies are inviolate and not subject to disease, age or environmental factors. This is why focus continues to be on pregnant mothers supposedly being responsible for passing on certain diseases to their children. The male sperm is viewed as inviolate – but this is proving to be a myth. See Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction by Cynthia R. Daniels.
How about the innumerable missing girls wherein women in certain parts of the world have to abort a foetus because it is female not the hugely desired male. One of the central reasons why women have to abort female foetuses is because the society they live in is patriarchal and male children are viewed as way, way more important than female children. Therefore it is not about women suddenly deciding to abort but the male-centered pressure these women experience.
Is Geoffrey Lean going to claim this is due to biological and environmental factors?
As an aside at the end of the 19th century western society experienced yet another male panic wherein it was declared 'the new woman' was feminising men and within a few decades men would all supposedly become 'feminine.'
Did it happen? Of course not – because patriarchy is far too resilliant to crumple under these spurious claims, but there certainly was a backlash against uppity women daring to demand and expect education, better opportunities for work and worst of all be seen and treated as human beings not inferior ones.
MariaS says:
I love how this "feminising" effect is assumed to be something that we should all freak out about. The fact that we are increasingly exposed to these chemicals in everyday life, with mostly unknown effects is very worrying. But slightly fewer men & smaller penises is not actually the terrible social crisis that Lean makes it out to be.
Oh please, please, please let journalists discover the difference between a correlation and a causal relationship.
Well, I know the difference between a casual and a causal relationship and the former involves much less effort 🙂
Gulfstream5 says:
The thing that really spooks me is when girls start turning into boys…..you know, when they start scribbling graffiti on walls and getting all keen on trains and model aeroplanes…
Still, I expect I'll get over it one day!
No it's when they start growing penises you need to worry Gulfstream5. Because that's the difference (or one of them at least) between boys and girls. Now who's going to break it to Geoffrey Lean?
I used to think the same as you before I looked into it, but the relationship between toy preferences and biological gender is actually a large and robust effect. Like the relationship between sex and gender, it's not a perfect correlation, but it is a sizeable and very significant one, at very very early ages. The relationship is certainly not random, and it's quite wrong to say that biological sex has nothing to do with toy choices. It demonstrably does.
Rather than deny what the evidence shows, I feel it would be more constructive, and more…feminist to attack the negative value-judgements surrounding "feminine" toy choices per se, as well as the enforcement of the stereotype on those who don't conform to it (which lack of conformity must be determined by the same causal factors as the stereotype itself).
That said, it does strike me that the notion of "feminisation" strikes terror into the hearts of some men. Note the mass exodus of males from previously male-dominated professions which admit significant numbers of females.
I think a person is on very shaky ground when a large part of his identity is defined by what he is not. A large part of masculinity is defined by opposition to, and denigration of, the female or "feminine". This is where misogyny comes from. It's an inherent and implicit part of a masculine identity, which is why it is so ubiquitous. Until we realise this, we'll never redress it.
So you don't think it's possible then Dan, that a relationship between toy preferences and gender is created by a child's carers? Have you ever seen someone run to snatch a doll off a boy for instance?
Can you cite a study which backs up your point of view? Because my own (admittedly anecdotal) evidence and real life experience of young children suggests the exact opposite.
Ditto misogyny. Created, not inborn.
I didn't actually say that, polly.
I wasn't making any claim about *why* biological sex is related to toy choice, any more than I was offering a view on why biological sex is related to gender identity.
Only a fule would suggest that carers have no influence on children, but the presence of a socio-cultural influence does not refute, or even speak to the possibility of a biological one. So your point about adults enforcing the gender stereotype, while I don't deny it, simply isn't relevant.
There is some evidence from studies of CAH girls for a biological component in terms of causality of toy-choice. In addition, you may be interested to know that the observed sex-difference in children's toy choices is stronger at one year of age than at three and five years, with both boys and girls reducing their interest in "feminine" toys over this time period. If you need the actual ref. for that, I'd have to dig it out and get back to you.
It is not so much a question of citing a study to back up my point of view (that would be a very biased way of going about things), rather my point of view is based on a broad knowledge of the literature on the subject derived from graduate seminars, and talking to (and being taught by) researchers in the field, enough to know that this point is pretty non-contraversial.
I'm sure you're perfectly proficient at Googling, if you're interested in empirical findings as opposed to anecdote. As a start though, off the top of my head, I'd suggest the well-known Maccoby & Jacklin (1974) and go from there. More recently, Melissa Hines has done a fair bit of work on this, among others.
And just for the record, I never said that misogyny is innate either. If it were, we'd all be screwed 🙂
Yes you did
I used to think the same as you before I looked into it, but the relationship between toy preferences and biological gender is actually a large and robust effect. Like the relationship between sex and gender, it's not a perfect correlation, but it is a sizeable and very significant one, at very very early ages. The relationship is certainly not random, and it's quite wrong to say that biological sex has nothing to do with toy choices. It demonstrably does
There. I'm proficient at googling, but I'd prefer a link, cos I'm also lazy. And I'd like proof that toy choice, gender or anything else is free of social influences please.
Only a fule would suggest that carers have no influence on children, but the presence of a socio-cultural influence does not refute, or even speak to the possibility of a biological one
No, and it doesn't prove the presence of one either.
"Does not refute" is not the same as proves.
Um… no, I didn't.
What I said was that, in general, children of a biologically male gender are more likely to choose "masculine" toys, children of a biologically female gender are more likely to choose "feminine" ones. That is a robust and well-replicated finding, so it's quite wrong to say that biological sex has nothing to do with toy choice, since it predicts it pretty damn well, in study after study, in culture after culture, in 40 years' worth of literature. Ditto for gender identity. You're a hell of a lot more likely to have a female identity if your sex is biologically female than if it isn't.
No-one is saying that toy choice, or gender identity, or gender-role conformity are free from social influence, certainly not me.
The point I am making (which you seem to have missed) is that the role of social influence does not speak to that of biology ie demonstrating social influence neither supports or refutes a biological influence.
The article implied that biological sex has nothing whatsoever to do with toy choices, and I was just making the point that that assertion is somewhat undermined by existing empirical evidence. I don't need to deny the role of social influence to make that point, and your reference to social influences does not undermine the evidence for either a biological relationship, or influence. Sorry, but that's logic for you.
Dan, you obviously consider yourself to be something of an academic, my advice to you is the same as the journalists.
Learn the difference between CORRELATION and CAUSATION.
The article didn't say that "biological sex had nothing to do with toy choices". It didn't say it did either mind you. It didn't comment on that at all.
It said that the idea that 'gender bending chemicals' made boys play with tea sets is absurd. Because it is. It also doesn't mean that "boys are turning into girls." Because believe me I have seen plenty of boys playing with tea sets, all of whom have grown up to be adult males, not females. Similarly my ownership of a chemistry set and lack of interest in dolls has not caused me to change sex to male.
And WTF do you mean by 'gender identity' anyway?
polly dear, I am a statistician. A correlation between two variables represents a relationship between them. I never said it was a causal relationship.
Also, maybe you might want to re-read the article as well. Final paragraph:
"Maybe that's because the toys children play with and the clothes children wear have absolutely nothing to do with biological sex…"
My advice to you is READ WHAT IS WRITTEN.
Oh, and gender identity? Why doesn't it suprise me that someone too lazy to even Google would be so breath-takingly ignorant and ill-informed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity
Cath Elliott says:
Dan dear, you keep saying that there's tons of evidence/research/whatever to back up your claims, and that we should look it up if we want to understand the subject better.
But when I was researching this piece the only study I could find on biological sex impacting on children's toy choices is the one I cited, the Erasmus university one.
So if you know of others could you please post some links, 'cos I'm buggered if I can find them.
No I'm not ill informed Dan (and I am also the official queen of google as well as most evol woman on the internetz). I just believe in the Humpty Dumpty principle, which is "a word means whatever I want it to mean".
Gender is a word which is used to mean a whole host of things. For instance it is used on official forms when they mean 'biological sex'. It is used elsewhere to mean a certain set of characteristics, such as loving frocks and high heels. If you were as much of an academic as you claim, you'd know that plenty of books have been written on the latter subject by e.g. Judith Butler. So when you start throwing around terms like 'gender identity' it is reasonable to ask what you, Dan, mean by that. Because it does not have a fixed meaning.
And please don't expect me to be impressed by your postgraduate education, because (like a lot of people posting on here I'd venture) I've got a postgraduate education too.
You may well be a statistician Dan, but you're not understanding the point that's being made.
Geoffrey Lean is saying chemicals that disrupt hormone balance cause children to alter their behaviour, and that the toys children play with are dictated by their hormone balance. Cath is saying that's a load of nonsense.
Now if toy choice is dictated by socialisation, there's no reason why endocrine disruptors should make any difference is there?
Do keep up.
Maybe that's because the toys children play with and the clothes children wear have absolutely nothing to do with biological sex, and everything to do with socially constructed gender roles.
And my advice to you is read the whole sentence, and learn to understand context.
Hi Cath
These are not my claims. I'm just reporting what I've read, and what I've heard from experts in the field.
I'm very surprised you couldn't find anything on Google – what search terms were you using? I found this, which I think is the same study I referred to about 1,3 and 5 year olds:
http://www.indiana.edu/~cogdev/labwork/toychoice.pdf
Or there's chapter 6 in this book, Brain Gender (see especially page 114):
http://tr.im/DHKJ
Google also gives me this, which you may also find interesting – more recent results about monkey's toy choices:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/tau-tca121002.php
and this: http://laurafreberg.com/blog/?p=591
Of course, what can be found for free on google is going to be limited, because most peer-reviewed stuff is closely guarded by the publishers and you have to pay for it. But lack of access for lay research doesn't mean that these articles don't exist.
In case you didn't know, for people without access to Athens or Web of Science or ScienceDirect or whatever, you can usually get a pdf of any study you read about by emailing the author. There's also Google Scholar and Google Books, which are also very useful if you're researching something.
Hope helpful.
Yes, Polly, gender has a fluid meaning. But gender identity has a well-known meaning, hence my surprise that you didn't know what it meant. And yes, I've read Judith Butler, Lynne Segal et al.
If toy choice is dictated ONLY by socialisation then no, there's no reason to suppose any biological influence. But there is evidence that socialisation is NOT the only influence on toy choice. As I have said before, the effect of socialisation on toy choice (which I haven't disputed) says nothing about whether biology also is involved. Based upon the evidence, children's toy choices are multi-factorial, that's the only point I was wishing to make.
I made no comment as to whether Geoffrey Lean is talking rubbish or not. I was just saying it's quite incorrect to say that biological sex has nothing to do with toy choices when it demonstrably does, in that it predicts toy choices pretty well. I also made no comment as to why that might be. Correlations don't imply causality, but they don't rule it out, and where significant (allowing for the particular vagaries of the distribution of the product-moment correlation coefficient) they do imply a relationship that warrants further investigation.
I don't see how the remainder of the sentence I referred to changes the fact that it is incorrect. The second half is as incorrect as the first:
Wrong on both counts, I'm afraid.
Because you have not read it in CONTEXT Dan."Have absolutely nothing to do with" in the CONTEXT of both that sentence and the rest of the piece, clearly means "a causal relationship".
Although you are clearly a genius at everything else, you appear to be struggling with English comprehension.
Context is all. And all observation is theory laden.
Even so, polly, whether talking about a correlation or a causal link, the evidence would suggest that her claim is incorrect either way.
And even if one is ONLY talking about causality, the presence of a pretty strong and reliable correlation itself requires a causal explanation. Which you don't seem very interested in thinking about. Why is that?
And gender identity may have a 'well known meaning', as far as you're concerned, the point is that not everyone uses it the same way.
Example 1. A biologically male person (XY chromosomes, external genitals penis, testes etc) says their 'gender identity' is woman. They mean that they feel their physical sex should be female and they wish to take hormones and have surgery to alter their external genitalia.
Example 2. A biologically male person says their gender identity is "woman". They mean they wish to wear 'feminine' clothes and adopt a typically 'feminine' appearance and 'pass' in society as a biologically female person. However they do not wish to alter their physical body in any way.
Example 3. A biologically male person says their gender identity is 'woman'. They are genderqueer and have no issues about being perceived as physically male, as they feel their gender identity is a matter of their own internal consciousness.
D'you see the problem? All three are talking about 'gender identity'. All three mean something completely different.
Dan. Thanks for the links.
The monkey one's interesting/challenging I have to say, but I wasn't persuaded by any of the others.
I don't see how it's possible to come to any conclusion re biology v socialisation in what influences toy selection in children even as young as 12 months, unless those children have been raised up to that point in complete isolation and without access to either toys or other people. Something that's obviously ethically impossible to do.
Even by the age of 12 months a child has picked up a hell of a lot from its surroundings and the people it interacts with, so I remain unconvinced/sceptical about any causal link between biological sex and play choices.
And yes, I realise that that's not exactly what you're claiming anyway…
The 'evidence' you have cited doesn't prove anything Dan, it certainly doesn't suggest that Cath's claim is 'incorrect either way'.
The studies of CAH girls ignore the fact that presumably, the parents/carers of these children knew that they have CAH and may therefore have – consciously or subconsciously – encouraged them to have 'masculine' interests.
The only way you could prove anything would be to rear children free of any outside social influences at all and observe their behaviour.
And even if one is ONLY talking about causality, the presence of a pretty strong and reliable correlation itself requires a causal explanation
Why Dan? a)there is not a 'strong and reliable' correlation from the data you have provided anyway, there is SOME correlation.
and b)if there is only SOME correlation there could be a multitude of causal factors. Or none, it could be coincidence.
Now if you had provided me with data that showed girls and boys played 100% of the time with gender appropriate toys, that would be a 'strong and reliable correlation'.
Learn some scientific method for the love of dawg. If you are going to show a causal relationship, you need to show that factor A CAUSES factor B consistently. Not just that they sometimes occur together.
Lol Polly. Snap!
If we are studying what happens when you heat water Dan, and every time the experiment is repeated, lets say 500 times, water turns to steam at 100 degrees celsius, it's reasonable to conclude that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees celsius.
If the water turns to steam at fifty degrees celsius half the time, and half the time at a hundred degrees celsius, you've not proved the boiling point of water is 100 degrees celsius.
Which is one good reason why I'm not interested in studying what toys children prefer to play with. Why would someone wish to study what toys children play with? Presumably because they wish to prove there is such a thing as 'brain gender' or 'brain sex'. So their theory affects how they interpret the results.
It's like the notorious claims of James Watson about the "IQ" of different races. He interpreted it to mean certain races were less intelligent. You could equally interpret it to mean that our ways of measuring intelligence are racist and culturally biased.
Now let's go back to what you initially said:
Now apart from the fact that the last bit doesn't make any sense, – how can a causal factor cause two entirely different effects? – you quite clearly say that there IS a correlation between children's toy choices and biological sex, and you suggest it can't be altered. Which suggests that you think it is caused by physical factors, since social influences can be altered.
Oh and my friends got a PhD in maths, and she can prove 1 = 0.
Thorry.
Do either of you actually know what a correlation is?
The typically used parametric coefficient, Pearson's r, takes a value between -1 and +1, with zero indicating no relationship between the variables, -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation and +1 indicates a perfect positive. That would be the situation you describe, for instance, where EVERY child played only with "gender-appropriate" toys EVERY TIME.
The extreme values of r (ie -1 or +1) are the mathematically theoretical extremes. In practice, taking into account random sampling error, and other variables (known or unknown), you never get a value of 1 when researching something you didn't already know the answer to, or something which is influenced by more than one thing (as most things are).
The standard of proof you are demanding is not only unrealistic, but also betrays a lack of understanding of basic statistics/research method.
What constitutes a strong and reliable correlation varies somewhat depending on your sample size, but the type of values that tend to be obtained in research on this particular question have a probability of occuring by chance of less than 5%, and often less than 1%, or even 0.1%. The standard required for something to be statistically signifcant in the social sciences is a probability of less than 5%.
This standard of proof is consistently the one demanded across all the social sciences. If you knew anything at all about research methods, you would already know this.
The same logic applies with experimental (as opposed to correlational) designs. The ability of a study to test causality has to do with the design of the study, not the effect size, or the result obtained.
But don't take my word for it. Your friend with the PhD in maths will verify all of this.
A causal factor can very easily cause more than one thing. Smoking, for instance, can cause lung disease, AND heart disease, though both of these are also influenced by other factors as well.
Oh, and I never said that the relationship between toy choices and biological sex cannot be altered.
Just saw your post at 5.09
Dan, you are funny.
Dan's first post is very confusing to start with: "[T]he relationship between toy preferences and biological gender is actually a large and robust effect. Like the relationship between sex and gender … "
Hang on, surely that first sentence is using "biological gender" as a synonym for "sex" i.e. physical characteristics, then in the next sentence he distinguishes between "sex and gender".
Dan, what is your own working definition of gender identity please? Genuine question, to help get a fix on where you're coming from. As Polly has pointed out, it can mean different things. The fluidity of meaning is inescapable – the very idea that sex & gender are not the same things, that the symbolic, outward differentiations that we humans make based on physical differences are learned, socialised, and not innately linked to those physical differences, is an idea that is still very much in process, and our thinking and language around these things are very much in flux. (Which is why I think it helps in any discussion about sex/gender if people start by clarifying how they are using the terms). Right now there is NO consensus on what "gender identity" means.
Plus the notion of physical sex versus socially-constructed gender (which I think is the working distinction that most feminists would make) is not actually remotely mainstream at all either – so to imply that it's "breath-takingly ignorant and ill-informed" to ask for clarification about what "gender identity" is stinkingly pompous. (And then to link to Wikipedia …. sheesh).
(This part also makes my head hurt a lot: "It is not so much a question of citing a study to back up my point of view (that would be a very biased way of going about things) … " – wtf? Could you not have just cited stuff to start off with instead of saying that the biological link is demonstrable, and expecting us to take it at your say-so.)
"I feel it would be more constructive, and more…feminist to attack the negative value-judgements surrounding "feminine" toy choices per se, as well as the enforcement of the stereotype on those who don't conform to it (which lack of conformity must be determined by the same causal factors as the stereotype itself)."
No, I can't parse that last bit for the life of me either. Anyway, ignoring the "feminism – ur doing it wrong", I would contend that there is no innate attribute of things associated with feminine choices that causes them to be treated as lesser choices – it's their association with women/girls that provokes the negative value judgement. As you say, professions become feminine when women enter them and men flee them. The social imperative driving that kind of phenomenon is, I would suggest, a strong need to preserve the significance of gender difference. If it's a free for all, and we all accept there's no meaningful difference between male people and female people, and they can all dress & decorate themselves how they like, and make whatever work/leisure choices they like, and so forth, – if that differentiation is gone then men as a class lose social status and power. As you say, masculinity is defined by desperately avoiding femininity.
Then, you say that people who don't conform to the gender stereotype have it forced on them, and that we should be challenging that – I could not agree more. But how can you talk of stereotypes and conformity if you think that gendered choices have a demonstrable biological basis? This makes no sense.
Yes, we know that not all male and female people embody the conventional gender attributes and preferences. To cling to the idea that these conventions are caused by something innate and to insist on the meaningfulness of those conventions, that can't help but hurt those people who don't conform. They measure themselves and are measured by other people as failing to to meet the norm, and struggle to fit themselves to the norm or are punished for not doing so. What we need is to get rid of the construct around which these things are measured, gender: the very notion that people must be correctly categorised into male or female.
When I was about four I distinctly remember telling my mother I used to be a boy. She said no, I had never been a boy, but I was quite insistent. Past life memory? Who knows.
Then I read about a four year old being treated for 'gender identity disorder' and despair.
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PSC.050.0079A
Yes I know what a correlation is Dan, I just don't accept that you can prove with a correlation such as 'more boys like playing with construction sets' that there is this innate thing called gender.
And given how many variables there are in human behaviour, why are you so determined to conclude that a correlation shows biological determination?
And my friend with the PhD in maths avoided statistics. For a good reason.
Oh and while googling around for something else I found this:
Mothers often deny treating boys and girls differently,
but studies show they do. The parents know the gender
of the child and from then on treat him or her as a member of that sex – often unconsciously. Boys' limbs are
exercised and stretched far more, and the vocal babblings of girls are imitated far more. Later in infancy,
boys are allowed less physical contact and less verbal and eye contact than girls. Boys are more likely to be
held facing away from the mother (and father) than toward. The parents are more likely to point something
out to a boy than a girl. The mother tends to yield more often to the boy's demand to feed, whereas the girl
is more readily denied and given direction. She has to yield to her mother's ideas of how much to take and
when. When this sort of different behavior is repeated hundreds of times, it is bound to have an effect. "By
the age of thirteen months, there are clear differences between male and female children," says LaTorre.6
"There is apparently an attempt to "develop independence, adventure and mastery
in the boy…. The males
show much more exploratory
and autonomous behavior."
Most other people also reflect their gender expectations
toward the child. In some experiments,
researchers took young babies and pinned opposite-sex names on them: girls names on boys and vice
versa. Without knowledge
of the experiment, people who were strangers to the babies were brought in
to see them. Predictably, they cooed over the "girl" babies saying "Isn't she pretty?", and over the "boys"
said things like, "Looks like he'll be a good cricket player when he grows up." A father, watching
his young
son tear into a steak with unsteady knife and fork, remarked approvingly, "That'll give you big muscles!"
Presumably he would never have said it to his young daughter. If a little boy drops his trousers and piddles in
the back garden, mother laughs tolerantly, but if her daughter takes off her underwear and throws it over the
neighbor's fence, she is probably scolded. Studies again show that the boy is given much more freedom and
allowed to do many things the girl is not. His dirtiness and untidiness is tolerated far more than a girl's.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ch3.pdf
And Dan to prove causation, you need a causative factor, not just a correlation, weak or otherwise.
Now in the case of smoking for instance (I am not an expert, so this is a laypersons summary) tar builds up in the lungs and causes a tumour.
It doesn't always happen, but approxmately 4 times as many smokers as non smokers contract the disease among women and it's 9 -1 among men.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8893051
Reason:there are other things that cause lung cancer.
So we can say, ok there is a very strong correlation between lung cancer and smoking. And we've showed the way that can happen by experiments. (Again laypersons summary, just take the experiments on beagles or whatever as having happened). So ONE factor that can cause lung cancer is smoking.
Now you are saying that children play with certain toys according to their biological sex, but wait a minute, their toy choice can also be influenced socially too.
Fine. Except the social conditioning (see the study above) mostly goes the same way as the supposed 'innate' biological preference. So how do ANY children defy the stereotypes?
And what exactly is the mechanism by which the effect of hormones in (pre pubertal ) children is to make them play with tea sets?
And how do we prove any of this? Since there are so many variables and we can't control them?
A correlation on its own proves sweet FA. Sorry statistics lovers, but them's the facts.
sianushka says:
i completely agree. you only have to look at the amount of pink and blue crap in mothercare to know that barely at any point in its life is a child free from gender stereotypes.
i am always curious in these debates about how "developed world" and western they are. what about in countries where children can't get barbie dolls and action man? is their gender identity/biological sex in flux? this i think is where the biological propensity argument falls down. children haven't played with gendered toys since cavepeople times, neither do in every corner of the world. it is a remakably recent thing. when children played with spillikins and jacks, for example, what statement were they making about their biological sex?
just a thought anyhow.
I don't see how it's possible to come to any conclusion re biology v socialisation in what influences toy selection in children
This was precisely my point. In the same way that one cannot eliminate the potential influence of social factors, neither can we eliminate biology from the mix of potential confounds.
What counts as a gendered toy can perfectly well have cross-cultural equivalents – amazingly enough, the researchers have actually thought of that.
I'm not particularly an apologist for this type of research, but if it's going to be rubbished, at least let it be rubbished on proper, logical grounds, and not from a stand-point of entirely misunderstanding the method.
(That last point was not at you, sianushka)
thebeardedlady says:
OK, logic, logic … I think that some other commenters said this, but I'm getting frustrated reading this thread.
Look. If you have two babies, a boy and a girl, and you give them a choice of pink or blue toys to play with, and the boy chooses blue and the girl chooses pink (bear with me), and if this happens every single time in every repetition of the experiment, this would still prove NOTHING whatsoever about the innate or biological relationship between sex and gender, because guess what? THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEX AND GENDER!
Gender is a social construct. 'Pink for girls' is a social construct. As is 'tea sets for girls' or 'tractors for boys'.
So, whilst if the above experiment actually took place with the results described, it would almost certainly indicate something about the relationship between sex and colour preferences, or contrast preferences, but it would reveal nothing whatsoever about gender.
Plus, as Polly points out, we begin to inflict gender on babies from even before they are born. The first thing we ask is the child's sex, and from that moment we start to initiate them into their gender role.
I'm not a scientist but it's just logic, innit?
Seems logical to me beardedlady.
Perhaps we should ban finding out the sex of the baby before birth. Would save a lot of gendering – or more likely the idiots would buy a blue and pink set of everything just in case. In case I haven't posted this here before – this is my most hated gendered item that I have ever seen. I have to resist kicking each and every one to bits when I see them: https://www.annsprams.co.uk/shop/item.asp?itemid=339
« The Force "Your husband has a right to expect regular sex" »


A new trailer is previewing the record, out later this year.
It's been a long time - nearly half a decade, in fact - since Janelle Monáe's last album, 2013's 'The Electric Lady'.
She's now announced details of a new record, called 'Dirty Computer'. The album hasn't got an official release date yet, but a new trailer has been shared, announcing the album.
As well as touring 'The Electric Lady', the singer spent her time between albums collaborating with Grimes, appearing on 'Venus Fly', a highlight from Claire Boucher's brilliant 2015 album 'Art Angels'.
It looks like more details on 'Dirty Computer' are set to come soon, but for now, watch the trailer below.


An Executive Session will be held at 6:40 PM.
The So You Want To Be a School Board Member? community program will be held on January 22 at 7:00 PM at the high school.
The Board Retreat Strategic Planning session is scheduled for February 11 with dinner at 6:00 PM and the session starting at 6:30 PM.
The Administration recommends Board approval to amend the 2018-19 Budget to reflect the $25,000 received for the School Safety and Security Grant.
Turf, Track & Court, LLC, renovation of tennis courts at the Middle and High schools at a cost of $14,520.
NuTech Design Associates, Inc., sidewalk and concrete improvements to Indian Rock Elementary School at a cost of $16,100.
Moore Engineering Company, replace in-floor grease traps in kind at the High School and Indian Rock Elementary, generator work at Valley View Elementary, and replace the roof top unit at the Middle School for a total cost of $17,450.
Gilbert Architect, High School stair tread replacement, gym floor refinishing, painting and basketball backstops for a total cost of $15,000.
Please note the Addendum at the end of the agenda.
Recommend the employment of Kathy Pugh as a support staff substitute employee effective February, 1, 2019.
Recommend the employment of Georgette Howard as a support staff substitute employee effective January 22, 2019, pending receipt of all required paperwork.
Recommend the employment of Richard Lowe, currently a part-time custodian at Yorkshire Elementary School, as a full-time custodian at the High School effective upon hiring a replacement.
Recommend the employment of Mayra Lopez and Elizabeth Bevan as custodian substitutes effective January 22, 2019, pending receipt of employment documents.
Recommend the approval of the retirement of Susan Mellinger, Elementary Art Teacher at Yorkshire Elementary School, effective June 30, 2019. Ms. Mellinger is retiring after having served 16 years in education, all with York Suburban School District.
Recommend the approval of the resignation of Lisa Faw, paraprofessional at the middle school, effective January 18, 2019.
Recommend the approval of the resignation of Melissa Eicholtz, part time custodian at the middle school, effective January 25, 2019.
Recommend Board approval of the request of Jordyn Beck, Middle School English Teacher for an FMLA leave of absence starting on or about April 1, 2019 through the end of the 2018-2019 school year.
Recommend Board approval of the request of Chevonne Tyson, Kindergarten Teacher at the Valley View Elementary School, for an FMLA intermittent leave of absence starting February 10, 2019 followed by a consecutive leave beginning on or about April 7, 2019 through the end of the 2018-2019 school year.
Recommend the approval of the following volunteers, effective January 22, 2019.
The minutes of October 24 are provided.
The following policies were discussed at length at the January 9 Policy Review Committee meeting and recommended out of committee for first read and eventual adoption.
The "…by Dawn's Early Light", highlights of the LIU Board meeting of January 8, is provided.
f. Recommend the employment of Korie Snyder as a 5th Grade Long-term Substitute Teacher at Indian Rock Elementary School effective on or about January 22, 2019, through the end of the 2018-2019 school year at the daily rate of $105, pending completion of employment paperwork.


Ashley Smith Named #2 Real Estate Agent on Social Media in Vancouver!
These Vancouver real estate agents are winning over the city's real estate market by gaining success on social media.
Vancouver, Canada's coastal seaport city is filled with successful real estate agents that know how to take full advantage of social media channels to dominate the city's real estate market.
We've researched hundreds of Vancouver real estate agents' social media channels and went through a certain process to select the best. We began with finding Vancouver real estate agents through different mediums and then looked at objective data regarding the Vancouver real estate agents' social media presence across various social media channels. Lastly, we made sure that all the Vancouver real estate agents who made it to the final list have great social media presence based on subjective variables.
Now, we present to you the Top 20 Vancouver Real Estate Agents On Social Media. Enjoy!
Thank you to Property Spark for the mention!
Check out the full list of Vancouver's "Top 20" Real Estate Agents on Social Media.